TMI Blog1980 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to this court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 700 being a part of the house rent paid by the assessee against his share income from the firm under section 38 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The assessment year involved is 1971-72. The assessee is a partner in the firm of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was a further appeal to the Tribunal. It was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the revenue that the AAC was in error in accept- ing that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of the business of the firm and the ITO had not considered that aspect of the matter. It was also argued by the revenue that the expenditure was not allowable in the assessment as it was not incurred for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to incur expenses on conveyance for that purpose. These findings of fact were not challenged or disputed before the revenue authorities or the Tribunal nor were disputed before us. It is well settled that when the income is allocated to the different partners of the firm, then the partners are entitled to have their income assessed in accordance with law, that is to say, under s. 28 of the I.T. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 and also the view is in consonance with the decision in the case of Matubai Chunilal Patel v. CIT (1967] 66 ITR 408 (Guj) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Jabarmal Dugar [1972] 84 ITR 158, where the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court also held that s. 67(3) was not exhaustive of all the deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
